MrMongoose

The way I do it is, but it seems im surrounded by people who prefer to bodge stuff and fix it later. I think they all wanted to be car mechanics but with a bigger paycheck, then started crying when they realised they'd have to do some maths. Nothing wrong with mechanics but I'm sure if they'd designed my pedestal it'd be too weak or overpriced.

But then there's Newtons Third Law. If the earth is rotating around you, you must be falling towards it at the same rate that it falls towards you...

Why they happen is theology and making them happen is engineering. Whether engineering is science is doubtful (say's an ashamed engineer).

I just re-read this and realised you don't have a scale... Naturally my methods will only work for what I initially thought I read, i.e. you don't have a sensitive enough scale. sorry

The question was how much force is required to lift a car, not how much force is required to operate a mechanism that can provide enough force to lift a car. Also, I was assuming he meant 2000lbm as thats a far more realistic weight for a car.

Chemical Engineering is really nothing at all like the other three.

Relativity doesn't change the fact that there is a gravitational force (weight) acting on you. If you were weightless you wouldn't orbit and enjoy all that wholesome free-fall feeling, you'd fly off into space as per Newtons 1st Law.

...'s 95% of something. oops.

and of course youre not weightless, you just FEEL weightless.

What about electromagnetic levitation? i.e. the repulsion of my chair by my rear end. Magnetic levitation doesn't sound so special now does it?

Precisely. Also I don't see what the difference between two infinite series has to do with summing a made up number called infinity.

This might oversimplify it slightly, but using potential flow theory Kutta-Juhkowsky Lift is proportional to the circulation of the flow around the ball, so the ball will have a force acting on it in the direction of the cross product of its momentary direction and its momentary rotation vector

Would an electromagnet capable of holding the weight of a train not use more fossil fuels than overcoming bearing friction?

I think he knew and he was trying to defend it with "same or different".

Maths doesn't let you subtract infinities as infinity is not a number and subtraction is an operation that acts on numbers.

But you were quoting Newtons Univeral Law of Gravitation, not Thedarkshades Special Case of Gravitation

Well the distance isn't generally related to the thrust, but if you want to be pedantic, shouldnt those two masses be different?

Its not that hard to find the force required if we know the centre of mass of the car.. Its just a matter of moments.

"Gravity" is a force, not the effect of the force, so you can't resist it. No matter how much thrust you get upwards from a rocket engine, the gravity acting on you is still the same.

Kirchoff's law is just a special case of Faraday's law when magnetic flux density is zero.

I have no idea how Americas currency works, but by the sounds of it a cent is the smallest (value) coin followed by 5 cents. If you go to a shop they give you change in the smallest number of coins possible, and doing so with each of those amounts gives 6 cents. i.e. 6 cents is a nickel and a cent, so thats 1 cent 12 cents is a dime and 2 cents $0.68 is 2 quarters a dime a nickel and 3 cents and the rest have no cents involved. Thats just one interpretation. i.e. my guess, not my solution.

That would help.. a square with four pivoted legs wont have any torques involved unless there are forces applied to it somewhere.

Blowing the fan will move existing vapour sideways so that it doesn't fall back into the cup but rather down the to the cup's side. The air remaining above the cup will be drier, so more vapour will be produced to establish equillibrium at the water's surface.

I taught myself some calculus with Jerrold E. Marsden et al. "Vector Calculus". Essentially it hasnt changed for 40 years, so get yourself an old copy off Amazon for £2 rather than spending £50 on the new one

I think the clearest example is that if infinity is a number and you claim that infinity+infinity=infinity then taking infinity from each side of the equation gives infinity= infinity-infinity Then you claim that infinity-infinity=0 so infinity=0 Indeed, 0+0=0 and 0-0=0 So infinity is equal to zero...